As Kim would say "I'm no lawyer" but its worth noting two recent actions of legal claims being filed against users who posted comments/videos not against the sites who hosted them.
Robin Hamman (who also works for the BBC) has more details on his blog here:
http://www.cybersoc.com/2006/10/claimants_go_af.html
Jem.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of John Leach
Sent: Fri 27/10/2006 11:15 AM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring
I'd have thought (hoped) that something like News Sniffer would fall
under the defences of "Innocent dissemination" or perhaps even
"qualified privilege" (the project itself being in the public interest).
It would also have to be shown to be doing further damage - I'm sure a
comparison of visitor logs from the BBC website and the News Sniffer
website would be amusing evidence to contrary here :)
In Laurence Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited, it was established that
an OSP can be held accountable if failing to act once informed of the
libel:
http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/demon.htm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/07/19/uk_court_rules_on_isp/
But nobody liked this outcome (except Mr. Godfrey I would expect :).
Demon, along with other ISPs and Electronic rights organisations, were
working on ensuring a change in law to protect OSPs in future.
I don't have time right this minute to investigate if anything has
changed since this (1999). Anyone know any more?
John.
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 11:50 +0100, Kim Plowright wrote:
> Any subsequent republication of the libel is also actionable,
> though...
>
> IANAL!
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Phil
> Winstanley
> Sent: 25 October 2006 09:03
> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> Subject: RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site
> monitoring
>
>
>
> I believe it's the "publisher" of content in Libel cases.
>
>
>
> Phil.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin
> Belam
> Sent: 24 October 2006 15:44
> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> Subject: Re: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site
> monitoring
>
>
>
>
> As someone who used to work closely with the BBC community
> site teams my first thought was what happens when the BBC
> pulls posts for legal reasons, and this site reproduces them -
> who ends up potentially legally liable - the site re-hosting
> the content, the BBC, or the original poster, even though they
> didn't give explicit permission for newssniffer to re-use the
> content.
>
>
>
>
>
> *shuffles off to consult lawyer*
>
>
>
>
>
> all the best,
>
>
> martin
>
>
> http://www.currybet.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 24/10/06, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> Thought this might be of interest to the backstage crew:
>
>
>
>
>
> http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/articles/list_by_revision
>
>
> http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/bbc/threads/mostcensored
>
>
> J
>
> ________________________________________________
>
>
> Jason Cartwright
>
> Client Side Developer - CBBC Interactive
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> Desk: (0208 57) 67938
>
> Mobile: 07976500729
>
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Title: RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring
- RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring Jeremy Stone
- Re: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitori... Richard Lockwood
- Re: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site moni... Martin Belam
- RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitori... Jeremy Stone
